IMO, if Canon releases a new 50mm, it won't be an L version. I think it'll be either equal or slower than f/1.4, have IS, and be around the $600-$800 USD, so it fits right between the 1.4 and 1.2 L. A 50mm L II won't happen for a while and a 50mm w/ IS will just be good enough until Canon can come up w/ an answer to Sigma.

I highly doubt the 50 f/1.8 is going anywhere. It is a top seller, yielding dependable profit margins.

I believe that the current 50/1.8 is the most chosen lens to purchase after the 'kit' zoom lens. Those people have grown up with IS. Therefore I think it is quite likely that Canon might feel that to maintain this momentum 'my first prime lens' should have IS.

IMO, if Canon releases a new 50mm, it won't be an L version. I think it'll be either equal or slower than f/1.4, have IS, and be around the $600-$800 USD, so it fits right between the 1.4 and 1.2 L. A 50mm L II won't happen for a while and a 50mm w/ IS will just be good enough until Canon can come up w/ an answer to Sigma.

Only the 50L??? Pfffff ... You won't believe the number of lenses missing on the Canon India website, including the 600II, 200-400 among other lenses.

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony

1. People want f/1.0-f/1.2, but sharp to f/2.8* The original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the f/1.2L. Though the aperture is not as wide, the 50 f/1.2 was deemed overall better looking with better sharpness/contrast while retaining much of the look/bokeh quality of the 50mm f/1.0, and eons less lens flare that was distracting in the original 50 f/1.0. As the aperture gets wider, keeping the lens sharp gets harder.* Why is there not an f/1.0 lens that is sharp for every focal length? Might it have something to do with the impossibility of doing so without other massive compromises? Why is there no f/1.0-f/1.2 24L, 35L, 135L, 200L?* Pointing to the 85L II is irrelevant as it is a totally different focal length, needing a totally different optical formula. The 85L II also has a lot of compromises, including slow focus, extending front element, lack of weather sealing, fragile rear element, large size, focus by wire, weight, price - it is a stunning lens, but it too has its share of problems.* Again, the original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the 50mm f/1.2L and on top of it had all of the disadvantages of the 85L II (slow focusing, fragile rear lens element, large, heavy, etc).* Other 50mm lenses f/0.95-f/1.2 like the Leica Noctilux are similarly not razor sharp.

2. People want no focus shift* Focus shift is a symptom of spherical aberration on wide aperture lenses* If you correct all spherical aberration, the bokeh looks less attractive (see Sigma ART f/1.4)* Most wide aperture lenses have some amount of focus shift, including the Canon f/1.4 and the Leica Noctilux; Since the Canon 50mm f/1.2 has purposely uncorrected spherical aberration to increase bokeh quality, there will be more focus shift and less sharpness (also due to the wider aperture).* For creamiest bokeh and wider apertures at 50mm, some focus shift is going to be necessary* A better solution to focus shift is introduce the ability to allow the camera body to make autofocus corrections based on the attached lens, focus distance, and apertures selected. This would allow the lens to retain the creamy bokeh without focus shift.

3. People want a Sigma ART f/1.4 clone* Sigma f/1.4 allows 50% less light than Canon f/1.2. Less light can mean higher ISOs = less contrast, less sharpness, more noise.* f/1.4 has about 14% less subject isolation ability than the 50mm f/1.2 due to greater depth of field at the narrower aperture.* Sigma's bokeh is not as smooth as the f/1.2's, likely due to all the corrections to get maximum sharpness. For the same reason, it has less focus shift.* The Sigma has the size and weight of a zoom lens or prime telephoto, and is a bit unwieldy for a 50mm lens.* The Sigma has documented focusing issues on outer points on some bodies, not just focus shift, but failure to focus accurately even wide open.

***

In the end, I feel asking for an f/1.0 - or even f/1.2 - 50mm lens that has all the beauty of the 50L and all the sharpness of the Sigma with the light and subject isolation capabilities of f/1.2 and less than $5000 is just too much to ask for. I would say if you would prefer a less challenging lens, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is probably your best bet - or wait for the 50mm f/1.8 IS. If you are a a sharpness junkie, get the Sigma. But otherwise, if you want a lens that is awesome all around for portraits, you can't beat the 50L and hence I see no reason to replace it. There are a multitude of options in the "sharp as a tack" category, I see no reason to extinguish one of the few amazing portrait lenses that is out there (along with the 85L II) to satisfy sharpness junkies.

On lensrentals.com is a good comparision of different 50mm lenses, even the most expensive Leica 50 f0.95 is among them (but not yet the Sigma Art and the Otus)

Its clearly visible there that there is a compromis to be accepted between fastness and sharpness, which may be pushed by accepting high costs but not until perfection. the Leica 50f0.95 is average sharp and may have average bokeh. the best lens was a moderate fast Leica lens.

Reading this, it may be an illusion that canon CAN manage to combine best bokeh, higest speed (1.0-1.2), image stabilisation and having the sharpness of the Art and Otus lenses. Beside that physics may prevent the existence of the hoped for lens, Canon would never bring this one in the price range of sigma if they have it.

If Canon had a lens like the Sigma or the Otus, they would price it below the Otus, but way above the current 1.2L.

I dont know, if IS can be easily added to a cheap gaussian design like the 50.1.8, but i assume a 50mm f2.0 IS lens can be realised for acceptable costs.

50 1.8 > 50 2.0IS for maybe 250$ with build like the other new IS primes. This fits most needs (not wishes) in an economical way.

50 1.4 > 50 1.4L with similar performance like the art lens, for 1.5x price. This will be a top product for professional use, it may be better (in a non mystic way) than the 50 2.0 IS

50 1.0-1.2L as a luxury portrait lens, maybe for 3k$-5k$. Expensive wedding Pro's, Fanboys, amatuers with deep pockets and collectors will buy this one. The optical quality may be better than the 1.2L, but worse than the 50 1.4L. Production cost, and quality wise this one may be in the same range as the noctilux, just more sold units.

50 2.5 macro. Did anybody ever bought this one? I guess will stay as it is or die

This allignment would respect the physical possibilities, mirror the trend of bringing replacement products on a higher (price) level than the precedors, give all owners of the current lenses a logical upgrade path...

Lets see what happens, and to be clear, this is some well reflected speculation and no rumor

1. People want f/1.0-f/1.2, but sharp to f/2.8* The original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the f/1.2L. Though the aperture is not as wide, the 50 f/1.2 was deemed overall better looking with better sharpness while retaining much of the look of the 50mm f/1.2, and eons less lens flare that was distracting in the original 50 f/1.0.* Why is there not an f/1.0 lens that is sharp for every focal length? Might it have something to do with the impossibility of doing so without other massive compromises? Why is there no f/1.0-f/1.2 24L, 35L, 135L?* Pointing to the 85L II is irrelevant as it is a totally different focal length, needing a totally different optical formula. The 85L II also has a lot of compromises, including slow focus, extending front element, fragile rear element, large size, focus by wire, weight, price - it is a stunning lens, but it too has its share of problems.* Again, the original Canon 50mm f/1.0L was much less sharp than the 50mm f/1.2L and on top of it had all of the disadvantages of the 85L II (slow focusing, fragile rear lens element, large, heavy, etc).* Other 50mm lenses f/0.95-f/1.2 like the Leica Noctilux are similarly not razor sharp.

2. People want no focus shift* Focus shift is a symptom of spherical aberration on wide aperture lenses* If you correct all spherical aberration, the bokeh looks less attractive (see Sigma ART f/1.4)* Most wide aperture lenses have some amount of focus shift, including the Canon f/1.4 and the Leica Noctilux; Since the Canon 50mm f/1.2 has purposely uncorrected spherical aberration, there will be more focus shift and less sharpness.* For creamier bokeh and wider apertures at 50mm, some focus shift is going to be necessary* A better solution to focus shift is introduce the ability to focus while stopped down in the camera body hardware (like DOF preview, but including ability to focus); or similarly, allow the camera body to make autofocus corrections based on the attached lens, focus distance, and apertures selected. This would allow the lens to retain the creamy bokeh without focus shift.

3. People want a Sigma ART f/1.4 clone* Sigma f/1.4 allows 50% less light than Canon f/1.2. Less light can mean higher ISOs = less contrast, less sharpness, more noise.* f/1.4 has about 14% less subject isolation ability than the 50mm f/1.2 due to lesser depth of field at the narrower aperture.* Sigma's bokeh is not as smooth as the f/1.2's, likely due to all the corrections to get maximum sharpness. For the same reason, it has less focus shift.* The Sigma has the size and weight of a zoom lens or prime telephoto, and is a bit unwieldy for a 50mm lens.* The Sigma has documented focusing issues on outer points on some bodies, not just focus shift, but failure to focus accurately even wide open.

***

In the end, I feel asking for an f/1.0 - or even f/1.2 - 50mm lens that has all the beauty of the 50L and all the sharpness of the Sigma with the light and subject isolation capabilities of f/1.2 is just too much. I would say if you would prefer a less challenging lens, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is probably your best bet - or wait for the 50mm f/1.8 IS. If you are a a sharpness junkie, get the Sigma. But otherwise, if you want a lens that is awesome all around for portraits, you can't beat the 50L and hence I see no reason to replace it. There are a multitude of options in the "sharp as a tack" category, I see no reason to extinguish one of the few amazing portrait lenses that is out there (along with the 85L II) to satisfy sharpness junkies.

Good points, but one can dream, at least of a f/1.0 with performance equivalent to the f/1.2. Unfortunately as you point, reality sets in...and to be perfectly honest, I am extremely happy with the f/1.2 and the f/1.0 shots I've seen are wildly beautiful in terms of bokeh but utterly lacking in contrast and sharpness. I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

Which one would you want? While I can 'dream' an immediate update to both lenses, I'd rather have an updated 35L first.

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony

I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

Which one would you want? While I can 'dream' an immediate update to both lenses, I'd rather have an updated 35L first.

For some reason the 35mm focal length never did it for me (I'm definitely in the minority) while the 24L II really spoke to me in terms of focal length. If I could have any prime updated, I'd love to see a 135 f/2 a bit sharper wide open, with IS, better coatings, and 9-blade aperture, or perhaps a 180 macro with 2.8 aperture and 9-blade aperture.

I would be really surprised if Canon updates this lens prior to the 35 f/1.4.

Which one would you want? While I can 'dream' an immediate update to both lenses, I'd rather have an updated 35L first.

For some reason the 35mm focal length never did it for me (I'm definitely in the minority) while the 24L II really spoke to me in terms of focal length. If I could have any prime updated, I'd love to see a 135 f/2 a bit sharper wide open, with IS, better coatings, and 9-blade aperture, or perhaps a 180 macro with 2.8 aperture and 9-blade aperture.

I'd rather have a 180mm macro with hybrid IS that focuses faster.

The 35L is purely out of selfish reasons, I don't have it yet!

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony